In my opinion, if you aren't going to call targeting late in that ASU/UT game, then you might as well not call it at all moving forward.

Seems like there is so much subjectivity in certain games that you're just better off not calling it, sadly.

Can't NOT make the call on a clear-cut penalty there just because of the name on the opposing team's jersey.


Now having said that, I wouldn't make a big stink about it if I am the Big XII Commish, as ASU still had their chances after that debacle.

Sure, if UT had ended the game in regulation on a made FG as time expired, then rant away.

But as it played out, ASU was still in prime position to win in OT if they just defend 4th and 13 properly.

Plus, even if the targeting penalty had been called, there was no guarantee ASU makes a game-winning FG themselves.

But to the original point, all parties need to re-evaluate what IS AND IS NOT targeting in the off-season.

Yes, if they are not going to make that call, they may as well do away with the rule.

ASU got the same no call earlier

Both defenseless players both hit to the head or neck area. Same no call. If you thought the Texas player actually targeted by standing there and getting the ball carrier with his facemask..not even launching himself. Idk what to tell you. I'd rather them not call it at all which they did on both sides.

BUBBFAN said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

ASU got the same no call earlier

---

They were not near the same.

---

Not even close...asu db flailed his arm at the chest area and went up into below the fask mask.

Ut db hit a defensless wr helmet to helmet.

Jorkel is a longhorn lover. Ban him.

Your username kinda ironic when u call Jorkel a Longhorn lover

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Your username kinda ironic when u call Jorkel a Longhorn lover

Agreed - That is rich.

---

The ref crew didn't do themselves any favors by stopping play and reviewing the call. It's going to lead to endless controversy. If the fix was in, just play on

Stefano DiMera said:

---

Your username kinda ironic when u call Jorkel a Longhorn lover

---

It was painful for me. We've covered my conflicting marriage in here many times. But, the irony is not lost.

Jorkel said:

---

Both defenseless players both hit to the head or neck area. Same no call. If you thought the Texas player actually targeted by standing there and getting the ball carrier with his facemask..not even launching himself. Idk what to tell you. I'd rather them not call it at all which they did on both sides.

---

Actually, I think your reasoning is why they didn't call it. Back in the olden days, we were taught never to lower our head for safety reasons but to lead with face mask which still often creates helmet to helmet contact. The Texas hit would have been a textbook tackle a couple of decades ago.

I think the fact he didn't launch and didn't significantly lower his head was the reason for the no call. Unfortunately, the targeting rule is so subjective, but so is unnecessary roughness.

LTBear19 said:

---

In my opinion, if you aren't going to call targeting late in that ASU/UT game, then you might as well not call it at all moving forward.

Seems like there is so much subjectivity in certain games that you're just better off not calling it, sadly.

Can't NOT make the call on a clear-cut penalty there just because of the name on the opposing team's jersey.


Now having said that, I wouldn't make a big stink about it if I am the Big XII Commish, as ASU still had their chances after that debacle.

Sure, if UT had ended the game in regulation on a made FG as time expired, then rant away.

But as it played out, ASU was still in prime position to win in OT if they just defend 4th and 13 properly.

Plus, even if the targeting penalty had been called, there was no guarantee ASU makes a game-winning FG themselves.

But to the original point, all parties need to re-evaluate what IS AND IS NOT targeting in the off-season.

---

They were probably wary to make the call since they didn't make the targeting call on a hit to a UT player just a bit earlier.

Switch the jerseys, and I bet you get a different call.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Switch the jerseys, and I bet you get a different call.

---

The most dumfounding call I've seen all year was the reversal of the pass interference call in the first Texas Georgia game. Apparently having fans throw trash and your coach run out on the field and have a tantrum and being Texas is enough to reconsider a pass interference call which to my knowledge is not allowable and never been done before.

Cheer FOR or AGAINST whoever you want.

"Targeting" in football is defined as the act of an on-field official or off-location league officer saying "hey, that's targeting". Simple as that. It's like the old "I know it when I see it".

So if you don't call the very clear head-first spear into Isiah Bond that occurred while he was reaching for the ball, airborne, and completely defenseless, how does the exact same crew call a penalty on Michael Taaffe when he was rushing back upfield toward his receiver, the receiver had already secured the ball and ran downfield before turning to check his surroundings?

The hit on Bond 5 or so minutes earlier was inarguably an aimed helmet strike. The collision that involved Taaffe was not.

And I'll reiterate, it's targeting when an official says so. And it's not targeting when they don't.

Let's be brutally honest about this, the non-call targeting against ASU resulted in their TD that tied the game. If the refs made the appropriate targeting call Texas would have continued their drive on offense and ASU would not have taken them to overtime.

You can hate the Horns. But Taaffe was far less guilty of targeting than the ASU player who turned his helmet into Bond's chin.

It wasn't targeting.

Also (not a Longhorn) in college the line is not allowed to PULL the ball carrier forward, only push from behind. And Skattebo's TD, he was pulled.

Any fan can point at officials when they lose. To my eyes that game was pretty evenly called. And the best part is they let both teams play.

Nobody is calling that anymore. I'm wondering if that rule changed.

Killing Floor said:

---

Cheer FOR or AGAINST whoever you want.

"Targeting" in football is defined as the act of an on-field official or off-location league officer saying "hey, that's targeting". Simple as that. It's like the old "I know it when I see it".

So if you don't call the very clear head-first spear into Isiah Bond that occurred while he was reaching for the ball, airborne, and completely defenseless, how does the exact same crew call a penalty on Michael Taaffe when he was rushing back upfield toward his receiver, the receiver had already secured the ball and ran downfield before turning to check his surroundings?

The hit on Bond 5 or so minutes earlier was inarguably an aimed helmet strike. The collision that involved Taaffe was not.

And I'll reiterate, it's targeting when an official says so. And it's not targeting when they don't.

Let's be brutally honest about this, the non-call targeting against ASU resulted in their TD that tied the game. If the refs made the appropriate targeting call Texas would have continued their drive on offense and ASU would not have taken them to overtime.

You can hate the Horns. But Taaffe was far less guilty of targeting than the ASU player who turned his helmet into Bond's chin.

---

The brunt of the Bond hit was shoulder to chest. That's why it wasn't called targeting. It was complete luck on the defensive back's part that it wasn't a direct shot to the head -- as the receiver's head cleared the impact zone milliseconds before contact, but most of the force was the DB's shoulder pad to the receiver's chest/shoulder pad. It was a vicious hit. But it wasn't targeting.

The second play was indisputably forcible contact to the head of a defenseless receiver by a defender who was leading with his helmet. You don't need a launch or contact with the crown of the helmet. You only need the above to satisfy the requirement. It was an easy targeting call, and virtually every rules expert is saying that today.

The way Bond's has snapped back was pretty awful looking and definitely suggests neck/head contact. I think they were both targeting. I was completely surprised both times no call was made.

ursamajor said:

---

The way Bond's has snapped back was pretty awful looking and definitely suggests neck/head contact. I think they were both targeting. I was completely surprised both times no call was made.

---

If you hit a guy in the upper chest with the momentum and force of that hit, his head is going to snap back. And there was some secondary contact by both the DB's helmet and forearm to the receiver's head. As is the case on most similar hits.

But the forcible contact was to the chest and shoulder. And it also helped the DB's case that he turned his body to ensure that there wasn't the type of helmet-to-helmet contact that would have made that an easy targeting call.

Everything i see is nfl rules analysts not only saying it waa targeting... but they are saying it is textbook definition of targeting.

Too much $ lost if ut loses that game. That's all it was.

He led with his head resulting in head to head contact with a defenseless player.

If that's not targeting, just get rid of the rule.

The referees got it right. That's what they're paid to do and they are the experts.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Nobody is calling that anymore. I'm wondering if that rule changed.

---

I wonder how often it happens. I don't remember seeing it before but I generally only watch Big 12 and post season games.

bear2be2 said:

---

ursamajor said:

---

The way Bond's has snapped back was pretty awful looking and definitely suggests neck/head contact. I think they were both targeting. I was completely surprised both times no call was made.

---

If you hit a guy in the upper chest with the momentum and force of that hit, his head is going to snap back. And there was some secondary contact by both the DB's helmet and forearm to the receiver's head. As is the case on most similar hits.

But the forcible contact was to the chest and shoulder. And it also helped the DB's case that he turned his body to ensure that there wasn't the type of helmet-to-helmet contact that would have made that an easy targeting call.

---

Naw, it was targeting. The defender intentionally drove his elbow/forearm into the receiver's head/neck area. He was trying to act like he didn't but from different angles it was pretty obvious.

He was also a completely defenseless player, that was contacted above the shoulder level.

That said I wouldn't have called either a targeting hit. They were simply playing football.


Otoh, the lineman that carried Scattabo across the goal line, that was some funny stuff.

I knew pushing from the back was ok. Didn't realize you could pick someone up and carry them across the line.

Scattabo had a legendary performance, he isn't very fast, but he has some wiggle is very skilled and tough as a boot.

Golden Helmet said:

---

The referees got it right. That's what they're paid to do and they are the experts.

---

Disagree. Are you saying refs dont make mistakes?

Forest Bueller III said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ursamajor said:

---

The way Bond's has snapped back was pretty awful looking and definitely suggests neck/head contact. I think they were both targeting. I was completely surprised both times no call was made.

---

If you hit a guy in the upper chest with the momentum and force of that hit, his head is going to snap back. And there was some secondary contact by both the DB's helmet and forearm to the receiver's head. As is the case on most similar hits.

But the forcible contact was to the chest and shoulder. And it also helped the DB's case that he turned his body to ensure that there wasn't the type of helmet-to-helmet contact that would have made that an easy targeting call.

---

Naw, it was targeting. The defender intentionally drove his elbow/forearm into the receiver's head/neck area. He was trying to act like he didn't but from different angles it was pretty obvious.

He was also a completely defenseless player, that was contacted above the shoulder level.

That said I wouldn't have called either a targeting hit. They were simply playing football.


Otoh, the lineman that carried Scattabo across the goal line, that was some funny stuff.

I knew pushing from the back was ok. Didn't realize you could pick someone up and carry them across the line.

Scattabo had a legendary performance, he isn't very fast, but he has some wiggle is very skilled and tough as a boot.

---

First contact (the forcible part) wasn't at the head or neck area. It was in the chest and shoulder pad. His first contact is made with his shoulder after the receiver's head had cleared the impact zone. And even his elbow made first contact below the neck. It was a brutal, vicious hit. But it was not targeting IMO.

This is the best view of first contact, and where it occurred. There's obviously some subjectivity here. And people can disagree in good faith. But I would not have called this one targeting either. The other hit was indisputably so.

Things have settled down, so I'll weigh in on the potential ASU targeting (interception).

1. The defender takes aim and attacks with forcible contact (he is not playing the ball).
2. He launches (indicator)

Now it gets very subjective and is what sets it apart from the Texas… pic.twitter.com/SieZoSvoil

— Terry McAulay (@tjmcaulay) January 3, 2025

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ursamajor said:

---

The way Bond's has snapped back was pretty awful looking and definitely suggests neck/head contact. I think they were both targeting. I was completely surprised both times no call was made.

---

If you hit a guy in the upper chest with the momentum and force of that hit, his head is going to snap back. And there was some secondary contact by both the DB's helmet and forearm to the receiver's head. As is the case on most similar hits.

But the forcible contact was to the chest and shoulder. And it also helped the DB's case that he turned his body to ensure that there wasn't the type of helmet-to-helmet contact that would have made that an easy targeting call.

---

Naw, it was targeting. The defender intentionally drove his elbow/forearm into the receiver's head/neck area. He was trying to act like he didn't but from different angles it was pretty obvious.

He was also a completely defenseless player, that was contacted above the shoulder level.

That said I wouldn't have called either a targeting hit. They were simply playing football.


Otoh, the lineman that carried Scattabo across the goal line, that was some funny stuff.

I knew pushing from the back was ok. Didn't realize you could pick someone up and carry them across the line.

Scattabo had a legendary performance, he isn't very fast, but he has some wiggle is very skilled and tough as a boot.

---

First contact (the forcible part) wasn't at the head or neck area. It was in the chest and shoulder pad. His first contact is made with his shoulder after the receiver's head had cleared the impact zone. And even his elbow made first contact below the neck. It was a brutal, vicious hit. But it was not targeting IMO.

This is the best view of first contact, and where it occurred. There's obviously some subjectivity here. And people can disagree in good faith. But I would not have called this one targeting either. The other hit was indisputably so.

Things have settled down, so I'll weigh in on the potential ASU targeting (interception).

1. The defender takes aim and attacks with forcible contact (he is not playing the ball).
2. He launches (indicator)

Now it gets very subjective and is what sets it apart from the Texas… pic.twitter.com/SieZoSvoil

— Terry McAulay (@tjmcaulay) January 3, 2025

---

The hits aren't even comparable.

UT hit on ASU was leading with the head resulting in head-to-head contact on a defenseless player.

ASU player came flying in with a chance at an INT, then when he saw his teammate had it, he turned to the side, and his arm/shoulder hit the UT receiver. It's not even close to the fact pattern on the UT hit.

And this view shows where first contact with his shoulder pad was made to the receiver's chest/shoulder. He was lucky the player's head cleared because that could have been a devastating play and would have been an obvious targeting call if it hadn't. But I think the different angles show they got this one right.

Defender raises arm, preparing to knock out high point catch.
Defender hits forearm across Bond's neck (follow black elbow band).
Defender extends through neck & lower facemask, snapping neck back.
Initial contact is arm bar to lower neck/jersey hole, sliding up into facemask. pic.twitter.com/irxMDI6VGR

— Snarkisian (@Snarkisian) January 3, 2025